User talk:BilCat/archive6

January 2008

Congratulations!

I see that you are among the 5 most active editors to the Boeing 747 article (#3, actually). It has just been granted featured article status! The star isn't shown yet but it's listed among the promotions. Archtransit (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New word

Canidalism - the belief by some Canadians that the USA wants to eat their country. :) - BillCJ (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if they don't want to eat us up, they sure want our water to drink! LOL [:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Infobox missile

Hi Bill - it's easily done... but the immediate result would be that the caption (such as it is...) would disappear from every article using the infobox. Before doing that, it really ought to be discussed with whatever WikiProject oversees that template (MILHIST?) I can't imagine any objections, but it's better to avoid accidentally treading on toes if possible! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the data is still right there adjoining the photo and since the "caption" doesn't actually add anything anyway (which is why you wanted to change it I guess!) I've gona ahead and made the change. If it causes a fuss, it's an easy revert. To make it work, an extra "caption" field has to be added to the data in the article - take a look at this example to see what needs to be done. Hope this is what you were after! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I just meant the pipe at the end of the line; when putting it at the start of the line is so much more elegant :) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

XF5U

If it's not in the right series, why don't you put it where it belongs, rather than just deleting it? Lou Sander (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Because until now, the page hasn't listed Navy aircraft, and I'm not sure they ought to be there. The page is a mess right now,and has expanded far beyond its original intent, which was to list the X-series planes only. I don't have time to rework it right now, but that's no reason to intentionally make it worse. - BillCJ (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bit of WP:OWN has crept into this article. Other editors can't divine its original intent, or know that Navy aircraft haven't been listed. It's hard to see how adding an experimental aircraft can "make worse" an article listing experimental aircraft, especially when the added one seems to be in perfect synch with the information in the lead. Lou Sander (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You can be bold and make a category for US Naval planes if you like, and add your entry to it. If I tried to work on it myself right now, others might think I owned the article. I intend in the next few days to bring the page up at WT:AIR to get input on how to revamp the article, as there are several ways to go with it, and I usually don't try to make those decisions by myself, esp since I'm not sure which is is the best way. However, I don't expect you to have divined all that on your own, but neither did I think I had to inform you of my every intention in improving the page. - BillCJ (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You may get a kick out of this. I don't have any intrinsic interest in the XF5U, and I never even heard of it before today. But today I was listening to an old time radio show that mentioned it (a Hop Harrigan episode from 1947 -- I listened to Hop when I was a kid). Just out of curiosity, I looked for the XF5U on Wikipedia. It didn't show up, probably because I was putting dashes in the name. I finally found it, but that was after I ran across the article with the list of experimental planes. Since the XF5U was an experimental plane that wasn't on that list, and since it seemed to fit the qualifications in the lead, I felt the need to go back and add it, so I did. Lou Sander (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:U-571

Um, were you planning to reply on Talk:U-571 (film), or just pretend not to notice that I've asked you very nicely to justify your mud-slinging? It'd be even better if you could justify your edit (other than with "I'm unhappy"-stuff). Cheers, JackyR | Talk 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Option 3: I missed your response totally. I was busy making more mud :) Of course, as an American, option 3 doesn't count when a non-Amercian has already made up his mind otherwise. Do what you want on the page, as I'm done fighting bruised British egos. - BillCJ (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for some input, as I was (and am) just trying to make the article clearer. But if you're fed up, don't worry about it. By the way, I too have just had a message from 70.4.227.155 on my user page, under the heading Talk:U-571. Don't know if it was from you, but doesn't seem to relate to me at all. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have wikistalkers. Sorry they got to you, but I assure you I do all my ranting :) under this account. They're cowards who have to use sockpuppets and dynamic IPs to harrass others becuase their original accounts were blocked. They're not that bright, and they think acting like this will get them reinstated! They're just a nusiance, like ants at a picnic, but I am sorry you were bothered by them. - BillCJ (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry you're having to put up with them. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

-200 747s

Bill, please have a look at my Talk for your 747 reply - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MC-130 Addition

BillCJ, I hope your health is better. I know Wikipedia encourages updated work, but my novice addition probably looks amature. I am well versed in MC-130 operations (eleven years); as a MC-130 weapons officer, a peer approached me about some inaccuracies with C-130 and MC-130 information. I see you have already improved my MC-130P addition in the form of better format. I am offically in training in my Wikipedia abilities, therefore, when I understand the code better, I will add a picture to go along with the MC-130P. BTW, I don't have the official number of aircraft, but for the Combat Spear, MC-130W, there were two aircraft as of November 2007 vice the one that is listed on the site. The 73 SOS, now stationed at Cannon AFB, operate those aircraft. --jb 08:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh

Well, I've decided to apply to join the dark side. As a user with whom I have interacted, I would appreciate your input on my nomination. This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated, but simply a request for feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the canvassing accusations. Anyway, I shot my wad over that one, and perhaps any future admin chances of my own. I was amused by someone's commnet on your "inability to think for yourself". That's something I expect to hear from people with misconceptions of the military, and I think that's all that comment was about. If anything, you've demonstrated an ability to think for yourself "too much", not too little! Oh well, I can't say that in an RFA either though. I don't think this has much of a chance of going through, especially with the canvassing accusations. Without any consideration of how you worded it or who you contacted, some good editors seemed put off by the accusation alone. That says more about them than about you, in my opinion. If you need any support regarding fallout from this, let me know. - BillCJ (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• BQZip01's RfA got closed earlier today. Sorry. :( Try again later. Try not to give too much extra info in your answers in the future. People used that against you it seemed. I didn't get the canvassing thing either. We wouldn't know about it otherwise unless we stumbled across it. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Provincial constitutions?

Copyedit form my talk page: "Bill, I asked this at Talk:Provinces and territories of Canada, and I thought i'd run it by you also. Do Canadian provinces have their own constitutions? This is not covered in the Provinces and territories of Canada article, and it seems to me it should be. - BillCJ (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"

As a matter of fact, provinces and the federal government are governed by the British North America Act of 1867 and all the various incarnations that came about since confederation or our birth as a nation. So the answer is no, provinces do not have their own charters or constitutions. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

Re: Template:RAN amphibious warfare ships

Hi Bill, I was going to drop you a line to explain why I made those changes. The landing craft would be out of place on templates for larger navies, but given that the RAN has always been pretty small I think that they're OK. List of Royal Australian Navy ships might be a better link given that most of the ships on the template are now out of service, but there's probably material for a very good article on Amphibious warfare ships of Australia or similar which I might create in the longer run. I think that I've missed three LSTs by the way, and am trying to find their names. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just created Amphibious warfare ships of Australia as a stub. The Navy book has a very useful chapter which will make excellent source material. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

UserBox Addition

Thanks - it was not me! most unusual to add to other peoples user page but we must WP:AGF. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bionic Woman (2007 TV series)

Unless you are seeing a different article, there was no lengthy discussion on its talk page about the name. The ONLY section on the article name is 1 person explaining why they moved it from "Bionic Woman" to "Bionic Woman (2007 TV series)" and another user saying they agree. I won't move it back myself, but I will start a move reuquest since I know I am right. TJ Spyke 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you make this odd comment on my talkpage: [1]? Or was that just an IP pretending to be you? I never edited your userpage or nominate some list of airlines for deletion (both of what that IP say I did). TJ Spyke 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The joy of Jimbo's open editing and trolls. I only comment on this username. - BillCJ (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a peer review of Boeing 737

Hello! Based on your areas of interest, we believe that you may be interested in participating in the peer review of Boeing 737. Comments from reviewers are needed over the next few weeks to assist editors in improving the article; we would be very grateful if you could spare some of your time to help out! If you would prefer not to receive such invitations in the future, please leave a message on this page, and we won't trouble you again. If you have any questions about the review process, you can ask them here. Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Now what? Well, now when you look at the history of an article, you should see a new link beside each version marked "Rollback" (next to the link that says "Undo"). In one click, "Rollback" reverts the article back to the state it was in when the last different previous editor changed it. In other words, it doesn't matter whether a vandal has made 1 edit or 20 - Rollback will blast the article back to the state when the last editor who wasn't the current editor worked on it. Hope that makes sense!?! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I just tried it out, and LOVE it. - BillCJ (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes

Thanks Bill! I think that one of the nice side-effects of this unhappy process is that we're going to get a lot better intra-project navigation out of it; and the collapsibility of the navboxes means that we should be able to include more sequences than ever before. Apart from the RCAF/CF: Sweden, the RAAF/RAN, and Brazil all have neat numerical sequences that are well-documented. I've got to take a break for a few hours at least, so good luck! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Navboxes are super RL. Thanks to you and anybody that helped/ing with making them. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mistake in the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation template Bill; that was the first template I have done, I'll try not to muck it up again :-) YSSYguy (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. My secret is to usually find one that works, and "borrow" the coding! - BillCJ (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang in there.

You don't have to worry, because the system actually helps to fight vandals, even if they get a momentary kick out of it. It's easy to revert, and there is a large group of editors watching pages to catch the vandals. It may be tiring to combat it, but in the end, their effort is ultimately wasted because it brings no lasting change to the Wiki. --Born2flie (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not as important as the fight others do in the deserts of the real world tho. Those guys make the world free for me to make Wikipeida free! And we won't forget that they and their families make the real sacrifics.

PS. You might get a kick out of this diff. Can we say "Amero-phobia"? - BillCJ (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Ah, I see now, extremely sorry. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been a litte contentious already, so I can see how it might look like me :) But I promise I only use this screen name on Wikipedia. Forgive me for the cleanup above, since it's not applicable now. - BillCJ (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuel starvation

Why are my edits being reverted? Surely, there's nothing wrong!!!

--202.95.200.17 (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer is all over your talk page. Stop editing long enough to read what's there, and pay attention to what is said. - BillCJ (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bill - I'm monitoring the situation. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

You deserve one of these in recognition of your impressive work on maintaining aviation articles and correcting vandalism. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User 63.215.26.148

Hi Bill, I remember you as someone who knows a lot about airplanes. Would you mind taking a look at the activities of Special:Contributions/63.215.26.148 ? I can't really figure out what he's up to, but it doesn't look all that productive. I first noticed him on this article: Controlled flight into terrain, and then when I looked at some of his other contributions I discovered that he had taken a perfectly good redirect page and turned it into something completely different: Hansajet. I've reverted both of those articles, but I don't have either the time nor expertise to understand what he's doing or do anything about it. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm busy at the momet with another project. You might post this at WT:AIR - there should be someone there that can look into this. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Luftwaffe as a generic term

BillCJ, I saw that you were involved in a discussion whether or not the word Luftwaffe is used in a generic way in German. I added some new and compelling (so I think) arguments to the discussion, you might be interested in. I would like to invite you to share your point of view and to facilitate the decision making. -> link. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I'd rather stay out of it. This guy seems like a troll (at least his actions are trollish) out to make a point that registered editors don't AGF with IP editors. However, my problem with him is with his words and actionsm, includ the use of profanity on my talk page. Hence my desire to bow out of this one, as I doubt he'd be willing to listen to me now, seeing he didn't listen earlier. - BillCJ (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian Carrier Hornets

Following the failure of the Invincible sale,

"The Minister [of Defence] made a statement in the House [of Representatives, on 26 August 1982] in the course of a budget debate saying 'The needs that led to the Government's decision to buy HMS Invincible remain. In particular, there is the necessity to ensure an adequate anti-submarine capability given the long maritime sea routes between Australia and her principal trading partners'. He then outlined the scope of the re-examination of options. These included; a new ship of the Invincible class, one of the Iwo Jima class, one of the Garibaldi class, possibly a SCS, a conventional carrier of 35,000 to 40,000 tons able to carry the FA18, British and United States proposals to build a simple carrier to merchant ship standards, and smaller carriers, including the conversion of existing container and other merchant ships." - Page 173 of Anthony Wright's Australian Carrier Decisions...the bibliographic data is in the Melbourne rewrite's bibliography if you want it.

Bits in single square brackets [la la la] are inserted by me for clarification, and do not replace any of the original text. The underlining highlights the point I believe you were interested in.

Hope its useful! -- saberwyn 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Montego Bay

Excuse me, but I think you are sorely mistaken. Montego Bay's mention in a Beach Boys song is notable, but it's mention in an Aerosmith song is not?? That's all I simply intended to revert-your removal of the Aerosmith mention. And how is that linkspam? I thought linkspam was external links meant to advertise a product. Abog (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Amateur site link? What are you talking about? I've never posted any external links or spam in the article or talk page for Montego Bay. So please quit spinning lies. Your so-called warning needs to be removed, since no external links or spam ever took place. All I did was add a few internal wiki-links. Excuse me for tyring to contribute something to the article. Abog (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. I now see how my undoing of your one edit could be confused with the undoing of another one of your edit's. I considered the edit vandalism as it was a removal of content, with no justification why in the edit summary. I felt the mention to be on equal footing with Kokomo's mention, as they are both songs about tropical places that featured "Montego Bay". Sorry if I over-reacted. As I've been a Wikipedian for two years who contributes a lot, I don't take too kindly to warnings and ultimatums. But I now see it was all a misunderstanding. Abog (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

Bill I sent an email to you. --Colputt (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

B2 Toilet

Sorry for the tone of my posts and comments if I seemed uncivil. It really annoys me that people who've never seen a B2 make assertations one way or the other. As for the disagreement, you do not remove content just because it's uncited, you strive to cite it. --Asams10 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My reason for doubting it was the fact that it remained for 4 months after first being questioned, which is why I stated I removed it. I probably would not have removed it had it not been there unsourced that long. Also, as I stated, the style of writing is reminicent of sneaky vandalism, my other reason for doubting it. Rather than continue to revert with tags, you should have waited those three minute till after you found the source. I'm glad you were able to find one, but please remeber that to impetus to source is one those adding or keeping the item, not those questioning or removing it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A101

Hi Bill, what a pleasure ! Yes, the photo is loadable under Italian and U.S. rules, but its PD status is controversial on commons which does not allow these loadings (an old story). In fact, I loaded the Image:A101.jpg on en.wiki, complete with its appropriate copyright status and I promptly filled Agusta A.101 helicopter template. One day or another I will continue with my "cousins" Agusta vintage helicopters. I promise it ! Thanks for your suggestion. See you around ! --EH101 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Should the "count" be capitalized, since it is a title? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are right ! I fixed count in Count. Just for your curiosity, I did the mistake due to different rules on capitalization between Italian and English. In Italian conte must be written without any capitals (maybe it depends from our republican status and subsequent change in orthographic rules) --EH101 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Humm. All the titles I can think are capitalized in English. But then I live in the US where there's not real royalty. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

F-16 main image

C'mon dude that was a gorgeous shot of the F-16's elegant silhouette, very representative of the type, unlike the current image. There's no policy that imposes limits on picture height and with the page length, I thought it was very suitable. I ask you to reconsider. Koalorka (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It can go anywhere on the page, and should, but not necessarily the Lead. Yes, there is no policy against it, but the infobox is there for the info as much as the pic. Readers shouldn't have to scroll down to see the first lines of the infobox. I'm not going to war ocver this tho, so if you want to re-add it to the Infobox, it's your choice, tho someone else may remove it. Alternatively, you can ask on the article's talk page, and see if anyone else cares either way (or even do both). - BillCJ (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

sure , a helping hand is always welcome..

Certainly,

If you could Wikify and eliminate my typos(not using my primary browser and there might be prettymuch of typos) and in general help to NEAT it would be greatly appreciated.. Absolutely, the only difference btw Ka-29RLD and Ka-31 is the avionics suite and the GPS/GLONASS upgrades..this sure can be worked. but i need to dig up some more sources..esp for the latest upgrades (Elbit seemed to have upgraded a command control relay system, but i see it in only one news reease, will keep u posted) & again...

thanks
Swraj (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

WP:Mediation Cabal

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-31 Indian Navy; on whether the claims of the Rg Veda on Varuna have any real function in IIndian Navy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for Infobox fix

Hi BillCJ, I myself had changed old climate box to infobox, but saved it (unsigned) before realizing that it broke ref section somehow. I discovered the goof with ref and did not know how to fix it quickly, so reverted it. Thanks for the infobox fix. Chirag (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! You had changed the Infobox as an IP, and then reverted it as a Registered user without saying you were the same person, so I didn't catch the connection. What I did was to check Template:Infobox Weather. When I saw there was a date field outside of the ref tag, I just added it - simple fix. Checking the template page often, though not always, helps in finding and fixing such problems. That's the good think abour Wikipeida - we can all double-check each others' work, and help fix problems and errors. I still make pleny of error, and others fix tmine on a daily basis. - BillCJ (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing thumb sizes on Japanese military pictures

Hi there. Please note that I may restore some in an attempt to ensure the pictures line up properly with text, rather than have one or two lines creep in underneath. I won't do it for the moment, but when I do I hope you won't revert me - or will at least raise a discussion on the talk page. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it makes a difference what resolutions you are using, and that the pics may not line up at other settings. It's probably best to move the pics to othr sections, to a gallery on the page, or to remove them. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

My comments weren't directed at you, but only as clarification to the previous comment. You and I disagree here and there, but we both yield to consensus and remain civil. I think many others are quickly becoming uncivil in this discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have two boys under the age of three...I have a few he can use...

Strictly for feedback, User:TomPhan weighed in on my AfD, but he has almost no edits outside my AfD. His edits are similar to CC's (misquoting me/misrepresenting what I said in order earn "points" with reviewers). Something strikes me as sockpuppety about this. Do you think I should bring it up at WP:SSP? Should I simply request a checkuser to verify? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes

You managed to fix my dumb M61 mistake and fix the Sea Harrier thing I missed today. I can miss things sometimes. I got an account on the Plane Spotting site a week or so ago. Haven't really done anything there except start building up a watchlist. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• And missed the non-Sea Harriers in that loss summary. I need to go to sleep... -Fnlayson (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're pretty good at catching a lot of my mistakes too. I think you cought a couple n the last few days even. The Harrier thing was easy to confuse, you were just copying what the other guy wrote. I was suspicious about the 6 vs. 10 losses tho, so I looked at the source, and realized the user was missing that fact that there were both Harriers and Sea Harrriers in the numbers, and that he didn't realize the difference. I know there are plenty of times you've caught similar mistakes of mine. We do make a good team tho. On the M61, I believe I made a similar mistake some months ago, and someone else corrected me; GE is the only producer I had known of to that point. - BillCJ (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. I checked that Harrier reference page and thought the 6 vs. 10 losses was accident/ground fire mismatch thing. The good thing about an editor messing up something in good faith is you notice where clarifying is needed. I'm doing some work on the F-15N page on the plane site, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

IL-76 AWACS in Iran

I'm afraid that the person who said that Iran has the AWACS modified by Iraq is correct. Here is a picture of one of them, taken in 2007 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Ilyushin-Il-76-Adnan-1/1315765/M/ Hudicourt (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a "mistake" - I said that "such an extaordinary claim certainly needs reliable sources". A photo site is not a reliable source - photos can be retouched, and captions can say anything. - BillCJ (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

VZ-9-AV

My first book was actually a ghost-writing project that I undertook with a researcher who owed his publisher a "first refusal project" that he wanted to devote to the VTOL flying saucer designs of Avro Canada. I knew nothing about the secret projects and had to rely on his extensive knowledge and exhaustive files based on a 30-year search through UK, U.S. and Canadian sources. Eventually, through the use of Freedom of Information Act requests in both countries as well as separate searches through UK sources, author/researcher Les Wilkinson obtained the original documentation on all of the Avro Canada "black" projects dating from 1952-1961. These projects included spade-shaped tail-sitters and disc-shaped "flat risers" that eventually culminated in the WS-606A supersonic fighter program that was funded by the USAF. The VZ-9-AV Avrocar which was initially considered a "proof-of-concept" test vehicle for the supersonic fighter was also funded by the U.S. Army as an entry in the "flying Jeep" sweepstakes. All the manuals, and every official document including company, government and military correspondence refers to the "VZ-9-AV" which was a reference to the project's Avro Canada origins. The project office was at USAF Dayton AFB and most of the material that was obtained came from USAF sources.

Only after its demise did the VZ-9 designation become standard in referring to the Avrocar. I can elaborate further but I will have to resort to the dreaded "original research" to pull out the company manuals and other corroborating material. After Les' untimely death during our collaboration, I received 30 boxloads of his research, of which approximately 1/3 has now been donated to a museum that acted as a depository for research on the Avro Canada company history. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

Bill, I did discuss this apparent discrepancy in my book: Avrocar: Canada's Flying Saucer (p. 69) as the "official" designation that was established by the Project Office was not always carried through but there are numerous other sources including Bill Rose and Tony Buttler's recent Secret Projects: Flying Saucer Aircraft (p. 76) that correctly identify the project as "VZ-9AV" (note the slight variation). From interviews with the engineering staff responsible, it was a designation that was made by the USAF WS606A Project Office to recognize the orgins of the project. It did not seem to be a requirement from the company as by that time, nearly 100% of funding was coming from the U.S. military, but it was acknowledged that the "AV" code was nonstandard. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

Canadian roundal

(moved comments from User talk:BillCJ/UBX/GWSun to here) - Fnlayson (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bill,

I have to apologize for not realizing to document my edits, I am very new here.

But, I was until recently a former member of the Canadian Forces and the roundel that is on the Canadian C-17 is commonly known as the RCAF roundel. The current roundel was introduced in 1965, simplifying the former roundel to match the maple leaf on the new Canadian flag. It has to my knowledge, training, and experience and in several references been referred to as the RCAF roundel, more of a tribute than anything else. This policy is in keeping with recognizing pre-unification items, such as the RCAF tartan and the RCAF March Past, as official 'issue'. Yes, the RCAF has been gone 40 years now, since 1968, but something’s do remain! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsim22 (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary?

Don't assume anything I do on Wikipedia is arbitrary, please. —Quicksilver^{T @} 09:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's arbitrary per the MOS, whether you think it is or not. -- BillCJ (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Certification request

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Cloud#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag

Please be a little slower on the button when you revert. You will notice if you check again that your revert wiped out a cite I had just put in to a Congressional Research Service report down the bottom, citing something that had only previously had forums for substantiation. You seem to have picked up on my primary concern - which issue of Jane's Defence Weekly, and when? page number, etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the stomp - the second edit was off the screen, and I totally missed it - I'll try to be more careful. I hope you got my point about tagging in the middle of a quote. Just a reminder that neither one of us are perfect, huh? And I've been trying so hard to be perfecter laterly! - BillCJ (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up and good catch!

it does look like I got a little confused there with my edit to the 767 article...musta just had too many tabs open. thanks for the fix and friendly note about it! – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Politics of Puerto Rico

Im curious over all the edits going around, but my guess is that you are trying to unify all these articles, is this correct? - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tying to, yes. See Talk:Politics of Puerto Rico#Major clean-up. If you can help constructively, such as writing a summary on the section I've taken out on Puerto Rico, I'd appreciate that. - BillCJ (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not up to date with politics and have avoided them since leaving the island on 2007, I'm probably not the user to summarize all those arguments. Just a comment though, the "oldest colony in the world" argument is a mayor game piece in the PNP (pro statehood) and PIP (pro independence) campains, wich means that its should be summarized in the lead somehow, however I am not sure how to write what is essentially a POV argument from a NPOV possition. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know that much either. Basically, I'm trying to combine what is there taht is sourced, and remove the more-outrageous statements that aren't sourced. I'll try to work the "oldest colony in the world" part back into to the Lead if I can, but such a statement really needs an opposing view to balance it out.

Despite the circumstances of the choice, Commonwealth status was chosen in a referendum. THe Philippines was achieved commonwealth status in 1937, and gained full independence in 1946. I don't think anyone back then really intended for PR to remain a commonwealth for over 50 years, tho I could be completely wrong on that assumption. I think they expected statehood or independence to be chosen relativley soon, but that didn't happen. To me, the main problem with Commonwealth status is that it has know constitutional "status", being something entirely created by Congress, and subject to change by Congress. There are only two ways to change that: PR statehood, which would give it all the rights of statehood, but all the responsibilities too; or amend the US Constitution to provide voting rights to non-states such as PR, as with DC and the 23rd amendment giving the district the right to vote in Presidential elections. It seems to me that many in PR want both to be semi-independent while remain with the US, and have full voting rights in Congress, but not be subject to the same taxation as US states (the so-called "enhanced-Commonwealth status). THat's not going to happen, in my opinion. At some point, a choice to move forward is going to have to be made by PR residents, to either statehood or independence. I'm glad to see the US COngrees finally moving toward a referendum on these choices, and I hope it can happen soon. - BillCJ (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Only a referendum with two choices can resolve the status issue, because otherwise it will be inconclusive, however I don't see that happening based on a consensus of the political parties on the island, especially because there will be heavy debating coming from the PPD (pro commonwealth) who have prevailed in those organized so far, personally I think that unless one of the two parts (that being the governments of PR and the US) takes a conclusive and final action this debate will outlive me and my generation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Kelowna Flightcraft Ltd.

Bill, thanks for your help in this article. When I read the other Flightcraft Charter article, I noted that it was probably best to revise that article but when I had tried to get the editor who had written most of the article and had moved it to revise the other similar article, he insisted that everything I said or wrote was wrong and so we were at an impasse. I left the article alone for the time being and then some wag found it yesterday in my sandbox projects and asked me to post it. Even though it wasn't anywhere near finished, I complied.

For the last few weeks, I had gone off on a tangent, writing aviation film articles just for a break. As to "The Ruptured Duck" article, it came from an aside in the "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" article I was working on and it seemed to be an interesting subject. Thanks for editing this article as well. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC).

I awoke to a flurry of activity on both pages. Please check the changes, I think everyone's contributions have made both pages substantially different from the original source articles and will probably pass muster now. FWIW, I did get it, BTW, that's my lot in life – to be the "burr under the saddle"! LOL Bzuk (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC).

BA609 edits

BillCJ,

I saw that you changed 2010 to 2011, and 60 to 80, but did not update the references. Is this information you can cite? Right now the references in place show cert in 2010 and 60 orders. If there isn't a source, I think it needs to be reverted. - Davandron | Talk 19:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that wasn't me - it was the edit before mine. I'll will try to check the BAAC website later to double check the new figures. - BillCJ (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

E-3 page

Any idea what the "expand" tag is for on the E-3 development paragraph? ComputerGeezer (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The article covers none of the history leading up to AWACS, nor the early development of the E-3. For example, the section should mention that the aging EC-121 Warning Stars needed replacement, and the new capabilities that the USAF wanted. There is no mention of the original designation, "EC-137D", or the fact that the original design was to have been powered by 8 TF34 turbofan engines. In addition, almost all of the existing "Development" section should be placed in the "Design" section, as that is what it covers. I have a few print sources with relevant info, and hope to get to it sometime in the future. My wiki-plate is pretty full for the time being, so it may be awhile, hence the tag. I will add these comments to the E-3 talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, a lot of design info, but little on how it came to be. I adjusted the tag on that page to try and say that. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. Milb1 has already added a "Variants" section, but he has done that before on his own, so coincidence or not, Thanks Milb1! - BillCJ (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it wasnt a coincidence this time!! I did see your message above and just happened to have my book on 707s handy so i thought I would just do it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rither way, many thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Country of Origin

With regard to your recent comments about country of origin I think adding it to the infobox would be a good idea. I have been adding it into the intros of aircraft articles when I see them missing but having it in the infobox would do no harm. I was once reverted for being over patriotic when I added it in the intro to a Boeing article and I am not from North America!. Main problem is with US articles when the presumption (wrongly in my opinion) that if it doesnt say the related country it must be American!! Perhaps it may be worth bringing up again at project. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My problem is the presumption that American articles must state "American", while so many of other nations do not state their country of origin. It's honestly haphazardly applied, and I think that it were some on the objections come in. I'll try to mention the infobox issue again at WT:AIR in a day or two.

Btw, please remember that the US has more people speaking English as their primary first language than all other such nations combined, tho many have trouble accepting this. Thus nearly 300 million people (certainly more than the English speaking Commonwealth citizens) have to share wikispace with people from the other English speaking countries, as well as many for whom English is not a first language who are from non-English-speaking countries. This is not the case for most of the other wikis, whose usage is tied to primarily one nation or geographich region, Spanish and perhaps French being the other major exceptions. I'm not complaining about the situation itself, as this is a by-product of English being the near-universal language, just asking for a little more understanding and lee-way from non-Americans. Yes, we share space with the rest of the world, but vice-versa is true too! (Sorry for the lecture - just my latest soapbox issue!) - BillCJ (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that all aircraft articles should state the country of origin whatever that is - I suspect you are right that the problem would be less. I understand about your balance of english speakers argument and the reason for tolerance - just a lot of people to educate then that their is a world outside of the USA!! MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement totally! I grew up partically outside of the US in a non-white commonwealth nation, and realize how bad that myopic view many Americans have is. I assign most of the blame to the current US media obsession with targeting the lowest-common denominator of intelligence in entertainment and news programming. I haven't wathced Amercin network news programs intentionally in over 20 years, as they spend 22 minutes on expanded "personal" stories, with litte har "American" news coverage, much less anything else from the rest of the world! I grew up where you could turn on the radio at 3pm, and listen to an hour of BBC World Radio news coverage - now THAT was comprehensive. Don't know if they're still that way or not. Also, US government-run schools are atrocious, and spend little time on world events outside of America's direct interaction, and currently most of that is in a purely negative light. So not only do they no nothing of the rest of the world, they think all the rest of the world's problems are our fault! I guess the fall of the various Eqyptian Empires was our fault since the US wasn't there to make it worse! - BillCJ (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dornier Do 24

Nice job on the Dornier Do 24 page Bill. I fixed it up a bit, and added some photos, but I like what you have done. Cheers from Canada.  ;-) --RobNS 23:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much, and thanks for adding the pics. A large number of pics were deleted from WikiCommons recently for not have correct copyright status info, and the Do 24 lost several in the purge. - BillCJ (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sikorsky X2 update

Hey Bill, didn't know if you were aware that we will be unveiling the X2 at HeliExpo 2008 this year. I have a few photos of the finished vehicle, and apparently some have already been posted online. I didn't take any myself personally, so I'm unsure of the copyright position. Unfortunately, our test schedule and specifically tether testing last week was put on hold for the show. --Cefoskey (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! I need to get busy and research some more sources, and try to get my X2 sandbox page ready before the first filght. Usually such events bring out more interest in the aritcle, and if there's not much in it already, we end up with a lot of info being added that is not well written and/or not sourced. - BillCJ (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Assumption is the mother of all ...

While recently watching the mindless action flick Under Siege 2 both a line from it and some of the action made me think of a recent encounter with you regarding the F-117 on the USAF fighters template. When I first removed the Nighthawk I didn't bother to see if anything else was out of place, otherwise I would've removed the rest like I did in the cited diff. I realized some might've seen the removal of something, then a reversion, followed by the removal of the first something and more as a wiki tantrum or something but not you since we've seen each other around. Anyway during the movie, a bud guy says "Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups...", which is a surprisingly true statement from a movie (for example I guess North American assumed astronauts would never need to get out of their vehicle in any kind of hurry while on the ground) So with the idea of assumption being bad in mind, just wanna say it wasn't personal or anything :) Anynobody 07:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't take it personally. - BillCJ (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dollars and $ at Olympic Stadium (Montreal)

I made the edit comment -- but forgot to make the actual edit. Thanks for catching that, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with your edit. I was basically writing a compromise for the anon IP, who I saw was logged on at the City of Montreal and figured might know something I didn't. But it wasn't a compromise I was at all happy with. What you wrote is all that can be proven. Let's see what the anon can come up with. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I totally understand. I often try to do the same thing as a compromise, then anotehr editor goes ahead and removes all of whatever it is. We see this thing alot on WP, with people trying to prove things just by pics, which of course are not reliable sources. Keep up the good work! - BillCJ (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ARH-70

That's a good way of handling the Arapaho name. My searches found that same Army press release as the reference, but I didn't know what to think of it. I guess that's the most likely name now. But I imagine it won't receive an official name until an important ceremony (not sure what that'd be at this point). -Fnlayson (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Arapaho looks like the inevitable name, but they could come up with something else too. The Lakota's name was announced when it was first delivered, but that date has been pushed back so many times for the ARH-70, that I don't know when that is supposed to be now. - BillCJ (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I can find, announcing the name happens at the delivery/acceptance ceremony. Same thing happened wayback when for Cheyenne. --Born2flie (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Claim of satanic images

Bill, I will briefly show you the image: thumb|screenshot This is the contentious frame that the editor has claimed is a satanic image with "666". If you believe that – first of all, it is upside down doodles that look more like "999" and what about the "333" symbol in the hair? FWIW, I didn't think the "666" claim warranted anything other than a removal as it was nonsensical. However, the wholly inappropriate comments left on the talk pages was my real concern. Bzuk (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the pic - it is totally unrelated, as I assumed. If those comments continue, I'd take it to an admin - seems like either a blooming idiot or a troll - usually both! - BillCJ (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image removed as it is prohibited from use outside of mainspace. Discussion continues on the "talk page" of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks. I was just trying to get the junk on your page stopped so I wouldn't have to take it off my watchlist! Hopefully this guy will run out of steam soon, since no admins seems inclined to spare the rest of us from this idiocy! - BillCJ (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dassault Mirage F1

In British english, the indefinite article "an" is used when the next word starts with a vowel ("aeiou"), and sometimes also when it starts with an "h" (as in "hour"). Is there some difference particular to American English, that words starting with a consonant also use "an" instead of "a"? Also, I don't understand what you meant by your edit comment that the initial sound in the abbreviation "SAAF" is "es". Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"SAAF", as I understand it, is an abbreviation, not a word, and is pronounced S-A-A-F (es-ay-ay-ef). As such, it would take a vowel, at least in American English, but I beleive I have seen the same practice in British English. That is why the bot corrected it, and why I reverted you. The bot does make mistakes, as it did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alaskan_Air_Command&curid=3024589&diff=193177399&oldid=193175364 here, where "SAC" is pronounced as "sack", not "S-A-C" (es-ay-c). If "SAAF" is generally pronounced as "saff" in South Africa, then I stand corrected, and you may revert me. - BillCJ (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it used as both an abbreviation and, more commonly, as an acronym. However in both cases, I believe that "a" would be correct (UK) English, as per [2] Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. In WP:AIR, we put French products under British English, so you can go ahaed and change it back. - BillCJ (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I looked up your link, and didn't see any rules for abbreviations. So, I did a Google search, and this link was the first hit. The site is registered in England ad Wales. It appears to be the same rules as in American English. But, if the common pronunciation of "SAAF" is as an acronym, then it takes an "a", just as does "SAC". - BillCJ (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool, I see where you're coming from. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Akradecki

I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. S. Balachandran. Akradecki was a good admin. --Edibility (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Alan was a great admin. Sorry to hear about this. As for Canadianisms, I would take a look at the Canadian Dictionary which came out in the 1990s. As for program and programme, both words are in use in Canada with no definite preference, although the Americanized form seems to have gained precedence over the last few years. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

"no admin will block IP vandals anyway, so why bother!"

Really? Hm. --Golbez (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd get a response somewhere to that one! Not enough room in edit summary for the whole rant, so here it is: Try blocking an IP for any real length of time - esp one that hasn't received "the full range of warnings in a 24-hour period", and see how long old Jimbo's lackeys will leave the block on, IP editing being sacred and all. Or how long they'll let you stay an admin if you keep it up! I've played enough games with the other admins to know that even if there are good admins who are tough on vandals, there's pleny more who aren't, and they're the ones who always seem to respond to "help" me deal with them. I've made a lot of edits, over 24,000 since Aug 2006 now, with some time off, and I'd bet 40% of my daily edits are vandalism related, if not more. With over 4000 articles on my watchlist, that cuts into a big portion of my edit day, and I don't - I'm here to edit, not clean up crap, but I'm addicted to editing WP, so I can't just leave either! Forgive me for generalizing, as you actually seem to care about making WP a safe place to read and edit. Oh well, I'm off to revert more junk on Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedi anyone can vandalize!" - BillCJ (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

LHA-6 image removal

I strongly disagree with your removal of the image that I posted on LHA-6 class amphibious assault ship. Yes, the work was created by Northrop Grumman. However, the work was done under contract to the U.S. Navy, which makes the picture the property of the Navy, just as if it were taken by an employee of the Navy in official capacity. Also you will note that the picture was officially released by the Navy. You should know that work performed by X under contract to Y, and paid for by Y, is legally the property of Y. —Life of Riley (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take the issue up at Commons, as I've speedied it there. If it is kept, I have no problem with it being in the article, as it certainly needs some pics. However, until the legalities are cleared up, it shouldn't be used in the article. You'll need to add a hold-on tag or something to the file on Commons if you wish to contest this. All I am doing is raising the question - I'll leave it to the wiki-lawering specialists at Commons to determine the pic's legal status. Even if Commons deletes the pic, we can probably use it here under Fair Use rules, but you'll have to reload it on WP under a different license. - BillCJ (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Before you get in such a rush to delete things, you really should read the source website’s policy. Quoting: “All information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified.” —Life of Riley (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop bothering me about this, and take it up at Commons - It's out of my hands now. as I don't have the autohrity to delete the pic! I've seen them delete images for the exact reason I listed this one. Commons cannot use any pics for which the copyright status is not exactly clear, and cases such as this one are not, you're interpretation not withstanding. I'd hightly suggest that, if you're certain you're right about cases such as this one, that you contact the relevant person in the Navy informational sections (whatever they may call it), and have them clarify this situation to Commons. There may be many other pics besides the one that you uploaded that we can use, and Commons may be deleting them unnecessarily. At any rate, WP itself may be able to use them freely, even if Commons cannot. So please, stop with your own rush to judgment about what I did, and start focusing your efforts where it matters. - BillCJ (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

B-29 Superfortress

Bill, An IPer added a new section and I marked it as needing refs and may be deleted... what do you think? Notice you deleted some F-111 text, similarly. I was supprised that Bzuk didn't mark the section like i did or didn't revert the addition, he only corrected the section heading title. Lance LanceBarber (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well,.... User:Anyeverybody went ahead and deleted it, oooooooookay.LanceBarber (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Having read the piece, it reads like a copy of something else, and is probably a copyvio. That much text added on one single thought needs to be sourced to remain in the airtlce, especially given copyright issues. I'd have probably removed it imediately myslef! - BillCJ (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

Thanks

		Milhist Coordinator election
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject election. I'm more than happy to serve the project for another six months! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Russian-Circassian War

I'm back

Bill, thanks for note dropped on my talk page. I'm back but probably not with as high edit count as earlier, but this time I'm going to make some cleanup with Operators section and List of operators articles. I'll try to edit some pages about Polish aviation but certainly later. I'm trying to resurrect my website about captured planes and I hope I'll be able to run it in March. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

BilCat/archive6: I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)